20 Mar
2019
20 Mar
'19
5:52 p.m.
On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:34, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi Caty and all,
Thanks for this investigation. I’ve checked the links you gave and checked out a lot of
them.
The best one I’ve seen and the best candidate I've found is
http://squizlabs.github.io/HTML_CodeSniffer/
It's under a BSD license, maintained, and working well from the tests I've done
on myxwiki.org and xwiki.org.
It's in JS (normal and BTW our current WCAG validator is missing checks because of
that) and can be run standalone on the command line with a headless browser (PhantomJS for
ex).
Actually PhantomJS is oldish and the simplest is probably to provide a Docker image in
which we have Chrome Headless set up for ex.
Thanks
-Vincent
See https://github.com/squizlabs/HTML_CodeSniffer
Note that it’s also the tool used by CKEditor’s Accessibility Checker AFAIK.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 3 Oct 2018, at 16:27, Ecaterina Moraru
(Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi devs,
I've started to analyze the 971 tests failing on webstandards related to
the WCAG validation.
I plan to create issues in order for us to fix the errors. The problem I
have is that we were validating against the Dutch Guidelines validation
tool (previously http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/testing) but this
tool has been discontinued by the Dutch Ministry in July 2017, see
https://www.digitoegankelijk.nl/onderwerpen/testen/nieuws/2017/04/25/gewoon…
The difference between the W3C WCAG rules (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/) and
the Dutch Guidelines was that the latest were more strict. Also WCAG
specification advanced to version 2.1 in Jun 2018.
Since I don't have much experience in the way we've implemented the
validator, I'm asking if anyone has any idea of another validator we could
replace this one with (in case we want this). Else, I will try to
investigate and find a replacement for a new reference validator.
Currently the plan is to fix our code to match the current definitions and
in cases that are not covered by W3C WCAG and where we want to add
"exceptions" I test also online on:
* https://ckeditor.com/ckeditor-4/accessibility-checker/ and
* http://wave.webaim.org/
Let me know if you have any objections to the 2 tools mentioned above.
I've started the investigation at:
https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/WCAG10x
we can discuss each error and "exception" on the individual issues.
Thanks,
Caty